A Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) tribunal has ruled that a landlord’s attempt to terminate a tenant’s tenancy in Ennis was invalid after rejecting four alleged breaches relied upon to justify the eviction.
The tribunal also ordered the landlord, Michelle Cotter, to pay former tenant Sarah Hennessy €500 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the invalid termination notice.
The case concerned a one-bedroom apartment at Riverlane House on Parnell Street, Ennis, where Hennessy rented from September 2024 until May 2025.
A 13-page tribunal report following a virtual hearing on 25 February 2026 examined a number of disputes between the tenant and landlord, including an electricity bill, mould in the apartment, a leak involving the washing machine and an allegation that Hennessy’s partner was living at the property without the landlord’s permission.
Dispute Over Electricity Bill
One of the alleged breaches concerned €145 in electricity charges.
The landlord said she had initially paid the electricity account when Hennessy moved into the property and expected the tenant to transfer the account into her own name.
According to the tribunal record, the transfer took place on 10 October 2024, after the tenancy began. Cotter argued that an outstanding amount remained for the period before the account was transferred.
Hennessy disputed the allegation and said she had provided a meter reading on 9 October and had been told by the electricity provider that she would be billed from 10 October.
During the hearing, the landlord acknowledged that she had not issued Hennessy with a bill or calculated the amount of electricity attributable to the tenant during the disputed period.
The tribunal therefore found that there had been no breach by the tenant and described the use of the alleged arrears as grounds for terminating the tenancy as “totally unjustified and unreasonable”.
Mould Became a Major Point of Dispute
Mould in the apartment became another major source of disagreement.
Cotter told the tribunal that mould first appeared in November 2024 and that she arranged treatment after the tenant reported the problem.
She argued that the mould was connected to the tenant drying clothes indoors without sufficient ventilation. The landlord said she had sent messages warning Hennessy about ventilation and believed the problem returned relatively soon after treatment.
Hennessy rejected the suggestion that she had caused the mould.
She told the tribunal that the property’s dryer was not working properly and that she had attempted to manage moisture by opening windows, using a dehumidifier and using electric heating.
She also said there were existing mould concerns around a skylight when she moved into the apartment and that the skylight could not be opened to provide additional ventilation.
The dryer was eventually repaired in January 2025, but Hennessy said the mould continued afterwards.
Cotter sought €586.60 from the tenant in connection with the issue. The amount included €202 for a dehumidifier, €321.60 for painting-related costs and a further €60 connected with a rent reduction.
The tribunal rejected the landlord’s claim.
It found that the landlord had failed to provide a properly functioning dryer for a significant period and had not provided a practical means of ventilating the skylight.
The tribunal also described a suggestion that the tenant install a clothesline in the small bathroom as “clearly unworkable and unreasonable”.
It concluded that Hennessy had not breached her tenancy obligations in relation to the mould and was not liable for the €586.60 claimed.
Washing Machine Leak
A separate dispute arose after water from the apartment caused damage to the ceiling of the property below.
Hennessy told the tribunal that she had been away on holiday between 10 and 17 February 2025. She said that after returning, she became aware of a reported leak and later experienced water escaping during a washing machine cycle.
The landlord arranged for the appliance and plumbing to be examined.
A plumber subsequently inspected the property and concluded that the problem was caused by an old and blocked pipe.
Cotter initially agreed to cover the €110 plumbing bill but later sought to recover the money from Hennessy.
The landlord also alleged that the tenant continued using the washing machine despite being shown evidence of water leaking into the apartment below.
However, during questioning, Cotter acknowledged that the video evidence she claimed to have sent to Hennessy on 18 February had not actually been sent to her on that date.
The tribunal found that Hennessy could not reasonably have known that continued use of the washing machine presented a risk without having received the alleged evidence.
It ruled that the plumbing costs should not have been imposed on the tenant.
During the hearing, Cotter ultimately accepted that Hennessy should not have been held responsible for those costs.
Landlord’s Suspicion Over a Second Occupant
The most contentious issue involved the landlord’s belief that Hennessy’s partner was effectively living at the property.
Cotter said she became suspicious after entering the apartment with painters in January 2025.
She said she noticed a clothes horse being used while the windows were closed and believed the conditions suggested another person could be staying at the property.
Cotter also told the tribunal that she had concerns about the impact an additional occupant could have on the mould problem.
Hennessy said her partner was based in Limerick and only stayed with her occasionally.
She disputed the suggestion that he was living at the apartment and said there was nothing in the tenancy arrangement preventing occasional visits.
Hennessy also alleged that the landlord had looked through her personal possessions during the visit and taken photographs, including a photograph of her laundry basket, in an attempt to establish that another occupant was living in the apartment.
The tribunal found that the landlord had “no evidence whatsoever” that Hennessy’s partner was living at the property beyond suspicions and inferences drawn from observations made inside the apartment.
It also found that the landlord was not entitled to search through and photograph the tenant’s possessions in an attempt to support the occupancy allegation.
Additional Rent Dispute
The tribunal also heard evidence concerning Hennessy’s final month in the property.
Cotter alleged that the tenant had failed to pay the final month’s rent and had instead used her security deposit to cover it without permission.
The landlord had separately brought an RTB dispute over the issue but did not pursue it after Hennessy moved out.
The tribunal noted that this issue had not formed part of the original warning letter and found it unreasonable for the matter to subsequently become part of the grounds relied upon for the termination.
Eviction Notice Declared Invalid
The tribunal ultimately rejected the four original grounds relied upon by the landlord.
As a result, the termination notice issued on 3 April 2025, which gave a termination date of 4 May, was declared invalid.
Hennessy had already left the property after receiving the notice and subsequently found alternative accommodation.
The tribunal awarded her €500 in damages for the stress and inconvenience caused by the invalid termination and the breach of her fixed-term tenancy.
However, not all of Hennessy’s complaints against the landlord were successful.
She had also raised concerns about exposed pipes, pigeon droppings and a poorly installed light fitting.
Those complaints were not upheld because Hennessy acknowledged that she had not reported those issues to the landlord. The tribunal found that the landlord could not reasonably be held responsible for problems she had not been informed about.
The tribunal also noted that, in relation to the mould and plumbing issues that had been brought to her attention, the landlord had taken steps to address them within a reasonable timeframe.
What the RTB Decision Means
The case highlights the importance of evidence and proper procedure when landlords rely on alleged tenancy breaches to terminate a tenancy.
The tribunal did not simply accept the landlord’s allegations. It examined the evidence behind each alleged breach and found significant shortcomings in several of the claims.
In particular, the absence of a documented calculation for the electricity claim, the dispute over whether evidence of the washing machine leak had been provided to the tenant, and the lack of evidence supporting the alleged additional occupant all contributed to the tribunal’s findings.
The decision also highlights the importance for tenants of keeping records of communications, repair requests, photographs and other evidence relating to disputes with landlords.
For landlords, the case demonstrates that concerns about a property or a tenant must be supported by evidence and dealt with through the appropriate tenancy procedures.
The RTB tribunal’s decision ultimately found that the landlord’s termination notice could not stand and awarded €500 to the tenant for the consequences of the invalid notice.
M10News will continue to monitor RTB decisions involving landlords, tenants, tenancy disputes and housing rights across Ireland.
